Access to Information Orders
Decision Information
The Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services (now the Ministry of Community and Social Services) (the Ministry) received the following request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for information relating to the requester’s deceased daughter:
I request all documents being held by the Offices of [the Ministry] ... that pertain to [the requester’s daughter] or contain her name or my name, [the requester’s name]. These documents should include, but are not restricted to, housebook notes, briefing notes, correspondence, e-mail messages, memos, letters, telephone logs, internal communications, minutes of meetings, etc. dated from January 1, 1999 to the present.
The Ministry responded to the request by advising the requester that access was granted to any responsive records relating to the requester. The Ministry denied access to the requester’s daughter’s records pursuant to section 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Act. In its decision letter, the Ministry also referred to section 66(a), which states:
Any right or power conferred on an individual by this Act may be exercised,
where the individual is deceased, by the individual's personal representative if exercise of the right or power relates to the administration of the individual's estate,
The Ministry invited the requester to provide the Ministry with “proof” that section 66 applies, if the requester decided to seek additional access using that provision.
The requester provided the Ministry with documentation in support of her position that section 66(a) applied, and the Ministry subsequently advised the requester that the documentation provided did not meet the criteria set out in section 66(a) of the Act, stating:
Please provide our office with proof (eg. Copy of will, assignment of executor to the estate, etc.), as described in section 66, and identify what information is specifically needed for the administration of your daughter’s estate.
The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Ministry’s decision. In her appeal letter she also indicated that, in her view, there appeared to be missing or undisclosed information.
Decision Content
NATURE OF THE APPEAL:
The Ministry of Community, Family and Children’s Services (now the Ministry of Community and Social Services) (the Ministry) received the following request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for information relating to the requester’s deceased daughter:
I request all documents being held by the Offices of [the Ministry] … that pertain to [the requester’s daughter] or contain her name or my name, [the requester’s name]. These documents should include, but are not restricted to, housebook notes, briefing notes, correspondence, e-mail messages, memos, letters, telephone logs, internal communications, minutes of meetings, etc. dated from January 1, 1999 to the present.
The Ministry responded to the request by advising the requester that access was granted to any responsive records relating to the requester. The Ministry denied access to the requester’s daughter’s records pursuant to section 21(1) (invasion of privacy) of the Act. In its decision letter, the Ministry also referred to section 66(a), which states:
Any right or power conferred on an individual by this Act may be exercised,
where the individual is deceased, by the individual's personal representative if exercise of the right or power relates to the administration of the individual's estate,
The Ministry invited the requester to provide the Ministry with “proof” that section 66 applies, if the requester decided to seek additional access using that provision.
The requester provided the Ministry with documentation in support of her position that section 66(a) applied, and the Ministry subsequently advised the requester that the documentation provided did not meet the criteria set out in section 66(a) of the Act, stating:
Please provide our office with proof (eg. Copy of will, assignment of executor to the estate, etc.), as described in section 66, and identify what information is specifically needed for the administration of your daughter’s estate.
The requester (now the appellant) appealed the Ministry’s decision. In her appeal letter she also indicated that, in her view, there appeared to be missing or undisclosed information.
During mediation, the following events occurred:
- The Ministry provided the appellant with an Index listing 312 pages of records pertaining to her daughter to which access was denied. The appellant confirmed that she was not pursuing access to those records, and they were removed from the scope of this appeal.
- The Ministry conducted a further search for responsive records, and located additional records relating to the requester and to her daughter. In a new decision letter, the Ministry granted access to the records or parts of records relating solely to the requester and denied access to the records or parts of records relating to her daughter pursuant to sections 21(1) and 13(1) (advice or recommendations) of the Act. The Ministry also provided the appellant with an Index listing the pages of records to which access was denied. The appellant confirmed that she was not appealing the decision to deny access to certain identified pages.
- The appellant advised the mediator that she believed that the records listed in the index led one to conclude that additional records should exist. She also referred to a document disclosed to her entitled Individualized Funding Coalition for Ontario and claims that this record also indicates that more records should exist.
- The Ministry conducted a further search, but no additional responsive records were located. The appellant indicated that she was not satisfied with the search conducted by the Ministry and that she wanted the issue of whether the Ministry’s search was reasonable to be included as an issue in this appeal.
- The appellant also identified that, in her view, there exists a public interest in these records. Accordingly, the possible application of section 23 of the Act was included as an issue in the appeal.
As mediation did not resolve all of the issues, the appeal was transferred to the adjudication stage of the process. I sent a Notice of Inquiry, summarizing the facts and issues, to the Ministry, initially. Furthermore, I decided to invite the parties to provide representations on whether any of the records contain the personal information of the appellant, and whether sections 49(a) and/or 49(b) may apply in the circumstances. The Ministry provided representations in response to the Notice. I sent the Notice of Inquiry, along with a copy of the Ministry’s complete representations, to the appellant, who also provided representations to me. I then invited the Ministry to respond to the appellant’s position on the adequacy of the search, by way of reply representations.
In her representations, the appellant confirmed that records 11 and 23 are not at issue.
RECORDS:
The records or portions of records at issue in this appeal consist of Records 1-4, 5, 16, 21 and 33 and consist of letters, a memo, a contentious issues report and a chart indicating services and supports required.
DISCUSSION:
PERSONAL INFORMATION
In order to determine which sections of the Act may apply, it is necessary to decide whether the record contains “personal information” and, if so, to whom it relates. That term is defined in section 2(1) as follows:
“personal information” means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including,
(a) information relating to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital or family status of the individual,
(b) information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the individual or information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved,
(c) any identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual,
(d) the address, telephone number, fingerprints or blood type of the individual,
(e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except where they relate to another individual,
(f) correspondence sent to an institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to that correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,
(g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individual, and
(h) the individual’s name where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where the disclosure of the name would reveal other personal information about the individual;
The list of examples of personal information under section 2(1) is not exhaustive. Therefore, information that does not fall under paragraphs (a) to (h) may still qualify as personal information [Order 11].
To qualify as personal information, it must be reasonable to expect that an individual may be identified if the information is disclosed [Order PO-1880, upheld on judicial review in Ontario (Attorney General) v. Pascoe, [2002] O.J. No. 4300 (C.A.)].
The Ministry has taken the position that the records contain the personal information of the appellant’s deceased daughter. The Ministry states:
In particular, the information at issue in records 1-4, 16, 21 and 33 falls under section (b) of the definition of personal information in section 2, as information “relating to the … medical history of the individual” and under section (h) as the daughter’s name appears in the records with “other personal information” relating to her.
I agree with the Ministry that the information contained in records 1-4, 16, 21 and 33 contains the personal information of the deceased daughter.
However, the Ministry takes the position that the records do not contain the personal information of the appellant. The Ministry states:
… although the records mention the appellant, the information in the records relates solely to the appellant’s deceased daughter.
The Ministry later states that, as a result of its view that the information relates solely to the daughter, notwithstanding the references to the appellant in a number of the records, the Ministry did not rely on the exemption found in section 49.
I do not accept the position taken by the Ministry set out above with respect to a number of the records at issue. The Ministry correctly identifies that some of the records mention the appellant, either by name or with reference to her relationship to her deceased daughter. More specifically, I find that Record 16 contains the name of the appellant along with other personal information relating to her, and qualifies as the appellant’s personal information under paragraph (h) of the definition of personal information set out in section 2 of the Act. I further find that Records 1-4 also contain the personal information of the appellant. Although the appellant is not referred to by name in those pages, she is referred to by reference to her relationship with her daughter and, in my view, is an “identifiable individual” for the purpose of section 2. Furthermore, these records contain information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved (paragraph (b)) as well her opinions or views (paragraph (e)). Accordingly, I find that these records also contain the personal information of the appellant.